Talk:Battle of Vuelta de Obligado

Result
A pyrrhic victory occurs when the victorious side has suffered more casualties than the defeated side. In this case, the Anglo-French blockade was forced to accept Argentina's sovereignity over Paraná and the other inland rivers, so Argentina won despite it's higher number of casualties, that's why it's a pyrrhic Argentine victory, not vice versa.

According to the day of commemoration, this was an Anglo-French victory, but at such cost that they gave up in the end. So that would be a Pyrrhic Anglo-French victory. A decisive Argentine Victory would suggest the complete loss of the Anglo-French fleets perhaps. As I read it here, the Anglo-French wanted to have navigation of the river and got it. And then thought better of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.221.192 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌ No, a Pyrrhic victory is one where the "victor" suffers such devastating losses that the outcome is more a defeat. It is NOT based on who suffers more casualties; it IS who can least afford to suffer those casualties. You are correct that that the Anglo-French fleet got the navigational access they wanted (Anglo-French tactical victory) and then it availed them little while bolstering the Argentine cause (Argentine political victory). However, neither side suffered unsustainable losses so this is not a Pyrrhic victory. Many battles are bloody or costly or have unexpectedly poor consequences, but that doesn't automatically make them Pyrrhic victories. The term is overused and often mistaken. — Molly-in-md (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This article needs more sources; I intend to get round to it when I have time. At present it advances one interpretation: that somehow (and ludicrously) the French and British navies were there at vast expense to promote free commerce on the Paraná, as if they had nothing better to do than convoy merchantmen in the correntino and Paraguayan hide trade.  A much wider range of considerations was involved, of course.  One cannot speak about whether a victory was Pyrrhic until one knows what the victor was intending to achieve.  In the meantime, disputable expressions like 'Pyrrhic' have no place in an infobox, which is supposed to be an uncontroversial summary.  If it doesn't have a clear consensus, it doesn't go in the infobox.Ttocserp 12:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Vuelta de Obligado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617222538/http://www.lucheyvuelve.com.ar:80/General/batalladeoblig.htm to http://www.lucheyvuelve.com.ar/General/batalladeoblig.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ateneohyv.com.ar/Regional/vueltaobligado.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420211139/http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/epoca_de_rosas/la_vuelta_de_obligado.php to http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/articulos/epoca_de_rosas/la_vuelta_de_obligado.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory II
Transcribed from my talk page:

Hi FarSouthNavy - My reading of Template talk:Infobox military conflict is that Pyrrhic is covered by the existing statement - hence "It's already covered by the proviso "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" - "Pyrrhic" being even less standard. " and " the deprecation of such terms in the infobox does not mean that the sources should not be represented in the lead, where prose can convey such nuance" I see no agreement that "Pyrrhic" is acceptable, whilst "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" are not. - Arjayay (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Arjajay - My rationale for restoring the term was based upon the infobox at Siege of Ostend; the conclusion at the template's talk page was that if enough sources are found, the non-standard result should remain. Feel free to revert my edits, but first please take a look to the mentioned article (Siege of Ostend).--Darius (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The use in of Pyrrhic in Siege of Ostend (as well as Battle of Malplaquet, Battle of Callinicum and Battle of Perecué) was why the thread was started. Although the thread petered out, rather than reaching a clear conclusion. The penultimate post includes
 * "The infobox, by its nature, does not allow to explain the nuance of such terms. However, the deprecation of such terms in the infobox does not mean that the sources should not be represented in the lead, where prose can convey such nuance .... we should direct the reader to the article (ie - victory X: see ...) rather than use a term with a degree of uncertainty in meaning to the reader or nuance in meaning by the the writer."
 * I agree with that, especially given the poor understanding of classical terms these days, I wonder how many readers actually understand what a pyrrhic victory is - they probably wonder what side the pyrrhics were fighting for ! - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Darius (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)